In Code

Elsewhere

Support My Wording & Coding

Every four years, I revisit my thinking about voting. I do it because I’ll revisit any old thinking given a chance and a reason, and because one of the consequences of this particular old thinking is that many people, on hearing it, feel more distant from me.

A theme of my life has been to find steps I can take to feel less apart from other people. Every election has generally been a big backward step. Every four years, I hope I can adapt myself to holding less alienating thoughts, or at least find less alienating ways to express them.

Right now, I’m feeling hopeful.

I believe, and you may agree, that…

It was meaningful and
emotionally resonant
when we managed to elect a black man as President. It will be meaningful and emotionally resonant when we manage to elect a woman. Maybe today.

I’m open to the possibility that, in some contexts…

Voting is morally or ethically superior to not voting

Voting can more effectively bring about desirable outcomes than not voting

Voting is significant compared to other actions we can take

I have not yet found myself in contexts where these claims seemed likely to be true.

I agree that…

In previous elections, I’ve often been told “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain” (about what the elected officials wind up doing). I’ve sometimes replied “If you do vote, you can’t complain” (about what the system of power inevitably winds up doing). But I never found it satisfying to say that. Everyone can always complain whenever they like, of course, and my goal had been to increase mutual understanding, not score a cheap rhetorical point.

In this election, I don’t recall anyone telling me this one. I’d be happier about it if I didn’t think it was because I’ve been talking openly with many fewer people than in previous elections. (I’m writing these words in a small attempt to do better about that.)

In previous elections, I’ve often been told that the debates are an important way to become informed about the issues and the candidates, and it’s irresponsible not to watch. In this election, I haven’t heard anyone say this. I’m somewhat happy about it because it means, for once, that my not watching the debates hasn’t added distance between me and other people. I’d be happier about it if we weren’t so polarized that those who watched the debates saw only confirming evidence of their choice.

I don’t agree that…

I’m not disenfranchised simply because I don’t want to be part of this specific franchise. I continue to exercise my agency and influence in ways I find congruent.

It matters who we elect

It also costs us. Some of the costs we never know, and many we can only guess. By the time we know more, it’s too late.

We all suspect we know which choice of presidential candidate would reduce more harm. One of them sounds, to my ears, far more evidently dangerous. That doesn’t fill me with certainty. It fills me with doubt about the other candidate, who is far more practiced at appearing sensible and humane and also at working the system of power.

I know which one sounds worse. But I don’t know which one is worse. We can’t know. There is no means through which that knowledge can be available to us.

Do I want to participate in a giant system of power — one with with long, slow, obfuscatory feedback cycles — that requires us to put one of these people in office? I don’t. As an Agilist, I don’t see this as a system that can ever work well, or that can ever trend toward better.

There’s no way this election doesn’t have consequences. That doesn’t mean I see any option for influencing them to my liking.

It also matters, far more, what else we do

John Lewis risked his life for something he held dear:

I’ve marched, protested, been beaten and arrested — all for the
right to vote. Friends of mine gave their lives. Honor their
sacrifice. Vote.
—John Lewis

Selma flattened me. I don’t know that I could have done what he did. I do know that the value he places on voting does not obligate me to do the same. When I see how he and others had to fight for some small additional fraction of equal treatment backed by the power of law, it does not occur to me that to solve this problem we must arrange for this power to be shared by more people. It occurs to me that this power is the proximate cause of the problem. We can’t prevent cruelty, but we are not obligated to put leaders in a system of power that magnifies the effects of any cruel behavior. And if the only option we can offer those to whom this system of power has been especially cruel is for them to participate in it more fully, then there is much more kindness waiting to be released from our hearts.

We invented this system. We can invent another one.

Neither voting nor not voting is sufficient

That’s how I see it. If voting is part of what you need to do, I’ll try to understand. I hope you’ll try to understand why not voting is part of what I need to do. And I’m quite sure that together, with our combined privilege and savvy and smarts and love, we can have a far more meaningful influence than the one we’ll have today.

Let’s keep using all our advantages to move the world, inch by inch, toward the world we want.

When coaching teams for a large enterprise, most of which profess to be doing something they call Agile, and which we both know is far from it, which would be more helpful?

Opt-out and find a company to work with that is less dysfunctional, who by definition needs the help less?

Opt-in, gritting teeth, and accept that small and painfully slow movement, often reversed, is as fast as that company can currently muster? This is the “If you plan to drain the swamp, plan on getting muddy” school of thought.

Opt-in, scream-and-shout to be certain to be heard in the hopes that it will somehow affect change sooner or later? You will likely have a shorter engagement but may feel better afterwards.

Opt-in, and by showing individuals how it can be better, aid them in finding somewhere else to work that values their contribution?

All of the above, in moderation, and driven by how much toxicity you can stand?

I hope this wasn’t too oblique. How does this relate to voting, or not? You decide. The one big difference that occurs to me is that who you work for can be your choice. Who makes/unmakes or enforces/ignores the laws that affect your day-to-day life, well, that’s not really a choice unless you’re willing to change countries vs. changing companies.

I struggled a lot with what to do, in this election. I believe that our current system of government is fundamentally broken, and the consequences are getting worse year by year. I think that it isn’t going to change from within, and I think that voting can have no effect on the brokenness of the system. And I think that working hard to mitigate a problem actually just perpetuates the problem, because it makes it seem less-bad - and that actually makes for worse overall consequences.

But I started this year with a different idea (than yours) about what to do about it. My plan was to vote for whoever was worse, in the hopes of leading the system more quickly down the drain, by making it more obvious, to more people, that it’s the system itself that’s broken.

But I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Trump. He clearly would have accomplished my goal… but I thought long and hard about it, and decided that voting for him was just morally wrong, on many levels, even if it would have helped expose the broken system.

So then I had to struggle with whether to vote for Hillary, or a “third-party” candidate. In the end, I landed in the same place as I did with Trump, but less-strongly-so: voting for any of them would still have been morally wrong.

So I voted for none of them. I think I’ve reached the same conclusion as you - voting for the least-bad option isn’t the same as “doing good”. This also leaves the system in the hands of the people who still believe in the system - and if they’re able to fix it from within, then I’ll be very happy to have been proven wrong! As somebody who doesn’t believe that’s possible, I feel better about staying out of their way.

I have lots more thoughts about this, and about why I think the system is fundamentally broken… but I can’t fit them into a blog comment, so I’m going to stop here.

I did still vote in various state and local races; I think the systems at those levels are still a mess, but they don’t reach the “broken” threshold, so I feel better about trying to do good (by voting) at those levels.

Thank you for your post! It prompted me to finally write something down about my thoughts.

At the risk of being too simplistic, the most concise thing I might say is that voting feels like it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for our country.

I also wonder if you feel this way all the way down the ballot, and if not, is there a level at which democracy in the form of elected officials has a useful outcome? The Senate? The House? State legislators? City alderpersons?

I like your comment about the voting process being a very long and ineffective feedback process. I hadn’t thought about it quite that way, but it does open up the conversation to what feedback systems there are already (petitions, letters), and what there might be.

You should vote. I’ve debated this with you before, and I’ll grant that I’m extra testy tonight. I won’t be able to sleep with the current election results, so I might as well put down my thoughts here.

You are not obligated to vote, but you should still vote. I respect that you have uncertainties about the election. I agree that many of the true outcomes of the election are obfuscated, and that we don’t see the real consequences for our choices for years to come if ever. But incomplete information is not solely grounds for inaction. If you can’t fully determine how long a necessary project is going to take, you still get started on it. You may not know which insurance company will be good down the road when you make a claim or have a health issue, but you still need insurance for the big things in life. Inaction is not an option many times. The same is true for society and government.

And inaction inevitably yields the initiative to those willing to take action - A racist, sexist, peddler of fear with no regard for truth, facts, or even reality is now President-elect because 7-8% of the country voted for him in the primaries, and 27% of the country voted for him in the general election.

And I deeply respect the disdain for centralized power. But changing it will result in a tangible body count. No system of government has ever changed peacefully that I’m aware of. The American Revolutionary War killed approximately 1 out of every 100 Americans, and the American Civil War killed 1 out of 40. I’m willing to put up with a fair bit of corruption, lost liberties, and crazy leaders before I sign up for one of those. And what alternative are you suggesting? Because without an alternative, I’m reminded of, “Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

So go vote. It’s the least you can do. If you don’t like the Presidential candidates, I understand that completely. My wife wrote someone in. She strongly debated writing in a fictional character. Vote in the primaries, so we’re not stuck with awful candidates in the general elections. Go educate yourself on local issues and local candidates, and vote for those. Aside from military decisions & Supreme court justices, they usually matter more in day-to-day life than the President anyway. And if voting down ballot feels insufficient, and really it is, get more involved. Call or write your representatives - you’d be shocked how relatively few people do. Go to your local council meetings. Get involved with community organizations.

Decisions are made by people who show up. Ultimately, you can’t lead people by staying at home.

So next time, go vote. Don’t stop advocating for change. Don’t stop advocating for decentralization of power. But in the mean time, vote. Because if all the good people stay at home, everyone else will decide for you.